Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A high school student, who is a transgender girl but was assigned male at birth, played on a varsity girls’ softball team in Minnesota under a 2016 state athletic bylaw permitting students to participate in sporting activities consistent with their gender identity. Female Athletes United (FAU), an organization advocating for women’s sports, sued Minnesota officials and local school boards, alleging that permitting the student’s participation violated the rights of its members under Title IX by denying them effective accommodation and equal treatment. FAU claimed its members suffered various harms, such as lost athletic opportunities and emotional distress, and sought a preliminary injunction to prohibit “male athletes” from competing against its members in girls’ sports involving contact or competitive skill.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota found that FAU had standing because one member’s team was scheduled to play against the transgender athlete’s team. However, the district court denied the preliminary injunction on two grounds: first, that FAU lacked a private right of action for its Title IX claims, because they were based on a disparate impact (rather than intentional discrimination) theory, and second, that FAU failed to satisfy the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that, under Title IX and controlling Supreme Court precedents, there is only a private right of action for claims of intentional discrimination, not for disparate impact. It found FAU’s claims were based on allegations of negative effects rather than intentional disparate treatment or deliberate indifference. The court concluded that FAU’s allegations did not support a claim of intentional discrimination. Thus, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction, holding that FAU lacked a private right of action for its Title IX claims. View "Female Athletes United v. Keith Ellison" on Justia Law

Police investigated an armed carjacking in St. Louis County after using an electronic tracking feature to follow stolen AirPods, which appeared to be located at a residence on Wylin Court. Based on this information, Detective Joseph Percich applied for a search warrant and submitted an affidavit outlining the investigation and his belief that evidence related to the crime would be found at the address. A county judge issued a no-knock search warrant. The county’s SWAT team executed the warrant, forcibly entered the home, and detained the family living there, who had no connection to the carjacking. The AirPods were ultimately found in the street outside the house.The family sued St. Louis County and Detective Percich in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Their complaint included claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an alleged Franks v. Delaware violation (claiming the affidavit contained misstatements and omissions), excessive force in the use and conduct of the SWAT team, unreasonable seizure, municipal liability for an unconstitutional SWAT policy, and a state law claim under Missouri’s Sunshine Law. The district court dismissed all of the federal claims, granting Detective Percich qualified immunity and finding that the plaintiffs failed to state viable claims. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs did not adequately allege that Detective Percich knowingly or recklessly included false statements or omitted material information in his affidavit, so no Franks violation occurred. The court also affirmed the finding of qualified immunity for Detective Percich on the excessive force and seizure claims. The court concluded there was no sufficient allegation of an unconstitutional county policy. Finally, it upheld the district court’s decision to decline jurisdiction over the Sunshine Law claim, affirming the judgment in its entirety. View "Briscoe v. St. Louis County" on Justia Law

A man whose only prior felony conviction had been expunged by a Missouri state court was arrested by a Missouri State Highway Patrol trooper for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. The trooper had accessed his criminal history report, which still listed the expunged conviction with a notation indicating it was “Closed Pursuant to Chapter 610 RSMo.” However, the Missouri State Highway Patrol did not train officers to understand this notation meant the conviction was expunged and could not serve as a basis for arrest. The man informed the trooper of his expungement at the scene, but she stated she had to rely on the report’s information.Following his arrest, the plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Missouri state court, asserting claims for damages and prospective relief against the Highway Patrol’s superintendent and others. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The superintendent moved to dismiss the official-capacity claim on sovereign immunity grounds and the individual-capacity failure-to-train claim on qualified immunity grounds. The district court denied both motions, prompting the defendants to file an interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of immunity de novo. The appellate court held that the current superintendent was a proper Ex parte Young defendant for purposes of prospective relief, as he had sufficient connection to the dissemination practices that risked future constitutional violations. The court also held that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged a Fourth Amendment violation and deliberate indifference by the former superintendent regarding failure to train. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of sovereign and qualified immunity. View "Cunningham v. Olson" on Justia Law

A man experiencing a severe mental health crisis was shot and killed by a law enforcement officer after a prolonged standoff at his family’s ranch. Family members had contacted emergency services, reporting his deteriorating condition, threats of suicide, and the presence of firearms. Multiple law enforcement agencies responded, including the Custer County Sheriff’s Office and the Nebraska State Patrol (NSP). After failed negotiation attempts, the NSP disabled the man’s vehicle, and as he exited and approached officers unarmed, he was fatally shot by an NSP officer.The personal representative of the decedent’s estate filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, bringing claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various officers, the Sheriff’s Office, and the NSP training supervisor. Claims against the NSP officers in their official capacities were dismissed due to Eleventh Amendment immunity, as were claims against most officers in their individual capacities except for the officer who fired the shots. During discovery, the plaintiff served a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition subpoena on the non-party Nebraska State Patrol regarding officer training. The NSP moved to quash, citing state sovereign immunity. Both the magistrate judge and the district court denied the motion, relying on earlier circuit precedent that government entities are subject to federal discovery rules.Upon interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of NSP’s motion to quash. The appellate court held that state sovereign immunity does, in this instance, bar enforcement of the deposition subpoena because the requested discovery was disruptive and infringed on the state’s autonomy and resources. The court clarified that prior circuit statements to the contrary were non-binding dicta and not controlling. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s order. View "Mick v. Gibbons" on Justia Law

A group of parolees who had been detained challenged the procedures used by the Missouri Department of Corrections for revoking parole, arguing that these procedures violated their due process rights. The plaintiffs brought a class action suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of all adult parolees in Missouri who currently face or will face parole revocation proceedings. The district court issued an order in 2020 requiring the Department to implement certain changes. After further proceedings, the plaintiffs sought and were awarded attorneys’ fees for their partial success and for monitoring the Department’s compliance.The Missouri Department of Corrections appealed the district court’s fee awards, arguing that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) limited the attorneys’ fees that could be awarded. The district court had repeatedly rejected the Department’s argument, finding that the PLRA’s fee cap did not apply because the certified class included parolees who were not detained and because some of the relief benefited non-detained parolees. The district court issued its final judgment in January 2025 and permanently enjoined the Department while awarding additional attorneys’ fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered whether the PLRA’s attorneys’ fee cap under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d) applied to the class action. The Eighth Circuit held that the fee cap does apply because the certified class consisted of individuals who are, or will be, detained during parole revocation proceedings and thus fall under the statutory definition of “prisoner.” The court also found that the PLRA’s fee cap section is not limited to actions challenging prison conditions. The Eighth Circuit vacated the fee awards and remanded the case for the district court to recalculate the fee awards in accordance with the PLRA’s limitations. View "Gasca v. Precythe" on Justia Law

After being employed by the City of St. Louis as a corrections officer for over two decades, the plaintiff was transferred to a clerk typist position in the City’s towing division following an injury. In her new role, she uncovered and reported numerous instances of apparent misconduct and fraud involving the unlawful sale or transfer of vehicles by employees at the tow lot. She conveyed her concerns to various city officials, including her supervisors, the mayor’s office, and the comptroller’s office, and ultimately disclosed the information to the media. Following these disclosures, she experienced workplace retaliation and was ultimately terminated by the Director of the Department of Streets the day after a news story, which included information she had provided, was broadcast.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed the First Amendment claim against the City but allowed the First Amendment retaliation claim against the Director, in his individual capacity, to proceed to trial. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, concluding that her protected speech was a motivating factor in her termination, and awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The district court denied the Director’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the Director failed to preserve his qualified immunity defense for appeal and found that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the plaintiff’s protected speech motivated her termination. The court further determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting contested evidence or in denying a new trial, and that there was enough evidence for punitive damages. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Woods v. City of St. Louis, Missouri" on Justia Law

An inmate in an Arkansas maximum-security unit, who is Muslim, challenged a change in prison policy regarding meals served during Ramadan. Previously, fasting Muslims received a “double-portion” dinner after sunset and a standard breakfast before dawn. In 2023, the prison discontinued the double-portion dinner, providing only standard portions for both meals, but continued to serve them at the appropriate times for religious observance. The meals together provided at least 2,000 calories per day. The inmate often skipped the provided breakfast during Ramadan, preferring to eat commissary food instead, which he could easily obtain.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division, granted summary judgment to the prison officials, concluding that the new meal policy did not violate the inmate’s rights under the Eighth Amendment or the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The court found that the inmate’s allegations of hunger and physical symptoms were not corroborated by medical evidence, and that the inmate’s ability to supplement with commissary food meant he was not denied adequate nutrition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the prison’s policy did not impose a substantial burden on the inmate’s religious exercise under RLUIPA. The court emphasized that the inmate’s claimed need for 3,000 calories was not rooted in religious belief, but rather based on the institution’s general meal plan. The record showed that the meals provided were nutritionally adequate and that the inmate voluntarily skipped breakfast, supplementing from the commissary. Because the inmate failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact regarding a substantial burden on his religious exercise, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Holt v. Payne" on Justia Law

During unrest following the death of George Floyd in May 2020, a large crowd gathered outside the Minneapolis Police Department’s Fifth Precinct after a citywide curfew had been imposed due to ongoing violence and destruction. Raven Bartz joined the crowd, which she characterized as peaceful, though widespread chaos and threats to public safety were documented that night. As police attempted to clear the area, officers deployed various crowd-control measures. Bartz was struck in the head by a projectile fired from a less-lethal launcher by Officer Conan Hickey while fleeing after a blast ball was thrown. She sustained a laceration requiring staples but was released from the hospital without a concussion diagnosis.Bartz filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against Officer Hickey and the City of Minneapolis, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, a Monell claim alleging unconstitutional policies or customs, and a state law battery claim. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the federal claims, finding that even assuming a seizure occurred, Officer Hickey’s actions were reasonable in light of the chaotic and dangerous circumstances. The court found that qualified immunity applied and dismissed the Monell claim for lack of an underlying constitutional violation. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. The court held that, under the totality of circumstances—including the violence, curfew violations, and threats faced by officers—Officer Hickey’s use of force was objectively reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Without a constitutional violation, the Monell claim failed. The appellate court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "Bartz v. City of Minneapolis" on Justia Law

During the summer of 2021, protests occurred at a pipeline construction site in northern Minnesota. On the evening in question, protesters, including Joshua Hollamon, attempted to disrupt operations by locking themselves to a vehicle at the entrance and then trying to breach the security fences surrounding the site. The construction site was protected by two fences topped with barbed wire and marked with “No Trespassing” signs, separated by a berm. As protesters, including Hollamon, climbed the outer fence despite warnings from officers, Sergeant Dustin Miller fired pepperballs at them. Hollamon alleges he was struck multiple times, including on the head. Despite the use of force, Hollamon and the group continued their attempts to breach the inner fence, and he was eventually arrested and charged with trespassing and obstructing the legal process.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment in favor of Sergeant Miller and the County of Wright on Hollamon’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, concluding that there was no constitutional violation, or, alternatively, that Sergeant Miller was entitled to qualified immunity. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. Hollamon appealed, arguing the use of pepperballs constituted excessive force under the Fourth Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. Assuming without deciding that a seizure occurred, the appellate court held that Sergeant Miller’s use of force was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, given the protesters’ active trespass, refusal to comply with officer commands, and intent to disrupt the site. The court rejected the argument that the use of pepperballs rose to the level of deadly force and distinguished this case from others involving compliant individuals. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Hollamon v. County of Wright" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a county employer required its employees to either be fully vaccinated or undergo weekly COVID-19 testing. Employees could test at county facilities during work hours or use at-home test kits and count that time as work. Two employees objected to these requirements on religious grounds. One employee, Borgheiinck, asserted that mandatory vaccines and testing conflicted with her Christian beliefs about bodily autonomy. She was initially given unpaid leave as an accommodation, but the county later revoked this, citing undue hardship, and ultimately terminated her after not responding to her proposals for alternative work arrangements. The other employee, Colson, also objected on religious grounds. She was granted an exemption from nasal swab testing and allowed to use saliva tests, which she found intrusive and non-private, but she was not terminated.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed all claims, including those under Title VII. The plaintiffs sought leave to file a motion for reconsideration based on new legal precedent, but the court denied this request. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their Title VII claims and the denial of reconsideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that Borgheiinck’s complaint did not sufficiently connect her religious beliefs to an objection to the testing policy, as required to state a plausible claim under Title VII. For Colson, the court held that she had not plausibly alleged that she suffered any adverse employment action, such as termination or unpaid testing time, since the county’s policy allowed testing during compensated time. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Title VII claims and its denial of leave to seek reconsideration. View "Colson v. Hennepin County" on Justia Law